USMC123 Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1351978208' post='3048149'] OK, dude from an alliance I've never heard of. What are you an NPO protectorate? [/quote] This is funnier than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1351974240' post='3048104'] Do not start the "Unwanted Aggression" propaganda. It has no place here and I for one expect better out of TOP. [/quote] Aggression isnt needed to solve this common problem and if it were to show up it would be unneeded. The Kingdom has condemned the action and has expressed a desire to do what is necessary to remedy the situation. This is the action that every alliance in this situation would take. The correct response would be to work with them towards an agreeable solution. That is how alliances deal with this matter. Do you not agree? Lastly, I don't care what you expect out of my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) Oh, boy, [i]nowwwwww [/i]MK's allies want people to start observing the unwritten inter-alliance code that they've spent the past two years gayrolling. "That is how alliances deal with this matter." What a riot. No need to play the moderate, Feanor, TOP can just switch sides right quick (if you think you can play nice with Non Grata and TLR). Snakes in the grass, and all that. Every alliance is good at something. Edited November 4, 2012 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1351983796' post='3048203'] I'd like to live in Vlad's world for a while, I thought I was supposed to be the one with a poor grasp on reality. [/quote] To be honest I really haven't a damn clue what has been going on in this game for the past year. All I know is NPO is on the opposite side of whatever side I'm on so I am going to say bad things about them whenever someone links me to a thread concerning them. Doesn't matter if the whole world is against us, the rest of you suck anyway. Edited November 4, 2012 by Vladimir Stukov II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1352006992' post='3048390'] Aggression isnt needed to solve this common problem and if it were to show up it would be unneeded. The Kingdom has condemned the action and has expressed a desire to do what is necessary to remedy the situation. This is the action that every alliance in this situation would take. The correct response would be to work with them towards an agreeable solution. That is how alliances deal with this matter. Do you not agree? Lastly, I don't care what you expect out of my alliance. [/quote] remember, MK should be given the time to express a desire to try to remedy the situation, CSN gets a DoW. [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1352007986' post='3048399'] To be honest I really haven't a damn clue what has been going on in this game for the past year. All I know is NPO is on the opposite side of whatever side I'm on so I am going to say bad things about them whenever someone links me to a thread concerning them. Doesn't matter if the whole world is against us, the rest of you suck anyway. [/quote] NPO is on the opposite side of you because your clique has acted even more obnoxiously than Pacifica did when they were hegemons, and you're right, not all of us are as good at switching our political views to ensure our pixel's safety, some of us actually believe in sticking by allies. Edited November 4, 2012 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1352008055' post='3048400'] NPO is on the opposite side of you because your clique has acted even more obnoxiously than Pacifica did when they were hegemons, and you're right, not all of us are as good at switching our political views to ensure our pixel's safety, some of us actually believe in sticking by allies. [/quote] Good to hear we have been doing something to make you guys mad. I don't know what you are referring to about switching sides and pixel safety so I'm just going to assume you are a moran and have no clue what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 perhaps instead of swapping sides you were simply domesticated by those who betrayed you, both would be an unacceptable path for an alliance I was to remain in, but maybe you have different standards for your leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1352006992' post='3048390'] Aggression isnt needed to solve this common problem and if it were to show up it would be unneeded. The Kingdom has condemned the action and has expressed a desire to do what is necessary to remedy the situation. This is the action that every alliance in this situation would take. The correct response would be to work with them towards an agreeable solution. That is how alliances deal with this matter. Do you not agree? [/quote] Surely you see the irony in this. How many times have you enabled your allies to not give other alliances the opportunity to work towards an agreeable solution? How many times have you cheered on, and even joined in on one special scenario, those that disallowed the opportunity for an agreeable solution to be worked out? And speaking of how "alliances deal with the matter;" are you aware that alliances usually don't accept those under attack by another alliance? They deal with it before accepting a member. Even MK itself in its 'membership rules and procedures' states that "[applicants][color=#000000][font=Arial, tahoma, helvetica, serif][size=1][background=rgb(208, 208, 255)] must be in no wars.[/background][/size][/font][/color]" Yet they accepted Dave93 who was at war with CSN, then attacked CSN less than 24 hours later for attacking their "member." And you, with your moralist stance about how alliances should deal with the matter, attacked Sparta shortly afterwards enforcing the precedent MK set. Maybe now you understand how all those people you stepped on, and those who were stepped on by people you enabled, feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1352010050' post='3048412'] perhaps instead of swapping sides you were simply domesticated by those who betrayed you, both would be an unacceptable path for an alliance I was to remain in, but maybe you have different standards for your leadership. [/quote] Only alliance I remember being betrayed by is NpO. Quit crying about TOP not being on your side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1352037503' post='3048450'] Only alliance I remember being betrayed by is NpO. Quit crying about TOP not being on your side. [/quote] Polaris didn't betray TOP. TOP tried to pretend it cared about morals so it could cash-in on someone else's crusade and it backfired. Then TOP moved away from their oldest treaty partners and nested in with the immoral alliances they were ostensibly fighting against. Let there be no mistake. TOP getting rolled was not Polars fault. That event and the event's to come are a result of Crymson's Folly and nobody is crying about TOP not being on their side. People usually do, but not this time. Unless TOP nations were aiding DESU though, I can't for the life of me figure out what TOP has to do with an MK rogue. Edited November 4, 2012 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1352007360' post='3048394'] Oh, boy, [i]nowwwwww [/i]MK's allies want people to start observing the unwritten inter-alliance code that they've spent the past two years gayrolling. "That is how alliances deal with this matter." What a riot. No need to play the moderate, Feanor, TOP can just switch sides right quick (if you think you can play nice with Non Grata and TLR). Snakes in the grass, and all that. Every alliance is good at something. [/quote] What is this I don't even.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1352039748' post='3048453'] Unless TOP nations were aiding DESU though, I can't for the life of me figure out what TOP has to do with an MK rogue. [/quote] I came here to wish my allies good luck in fixing this situation. Some people didn't take to kindly to that. It seems they want conflict rather than a peaceful solution. Also, Vlad and Mogar seem to be in a pissing match but I don't see why anyone would pay them any attention. Edited November 4, 2012 by Feanor Noldorin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 GL to our allies to resolve this in a satisfactory manner. Allies, who have been victims of this unnecessary aggression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1352039748' post='3048453'] Polaris didn't betray TOP. TOP tried to pretend it cared about morals so it could cash-in on someone else's crusade and it backfired. Then TOP moved away from their oldest treaty partners and nested in with the immoral alliances they were ostensibly fighting against. Let there be no mistake. TOP getting rolled was not Polars fault. That event and the event's to come are a result of Crymson's Folly and nobody is crying about TOP not being on their side. People usually do, but not this time. Unless TOP nations were aiding DESU though, I can't for the life of me figure out what TOP has to do with an MK rogue. [/quote] Which of our oldest allies did we move away from after BiPolar? You are just making !@#$ up. The only ally we ever moved away from was NPO for starting a war that would pit us against our closer Citadel allies. You are truly retarded if you believe it's realistic for an alliance to have the same exact foreign policy over a 6 year period. Times change and new friendships are formed, stop living in the past. Edited November 4, 2012 by Vladimir Stukov II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 There seems to be a whole lot of epeen waving and unnecessary sidetracking going on. It's a very simple situation: 1) NPO is at war with a Rogue 2) That rogue was given secret aid by another nation Pretty commonplace this, happens alot, I remember that one guy, Kim Jong something, gave secret aid to Methrage and ended up an EoG. This kind of stuff happens all the time. No reason to get all pissy about this part. Now, based on precedence within our community, providing secret aid to a rogue is considered pretty bad. Therefore NPO has the right to ask for certain things in response, such as reparations, a single ZI, etc. Still pretty straightforward right? Now here's where the problem kicks in, if NPO demands something that MK will not do (ie. allow a ZI on a member, reps are to high from their opinion, etc) then NPO has the decision on whether to attack or not. So I guess the point to all this is you guys are arguing and chest thumping way to early in the process, MK and NPO's discussions decide how this goes down. Very likely there will be a negotiated settlement where both parties aren't 100% satisfied but can agree on the compromise. So can we wait for something dramatic to actually happen before we start getting all hot and bothered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1352042993' post='3048465'] Which of our oldest allies did we move away from after BiPolar? You are just making !@#$ up. The only ally we ever moved away from was NPO for starting a war that would pit us against our closer Citadel allies. You are truly retarded if you believe it's realistic for an alliance to have the same exact foreign policy over a 6 year period. Times change and new friendships are formed, stop living in the past. [/quote] TOP oldest ally is obviously not NPO. TOP did right by themselves when they moved away from NPO, they were never that good of a fit with the rest of tC anyway. The move toward Doomhouse though was more than a move away from NPO, it was in effect (though probably not intentionally) a move away from TOPs oldest treaty partner as evidenced by IRON cancelling on Umbrella about 7 minutes after TOP signed with them. I'm not mad at TOP for finding new friends with former enemies. We've done the same and have found them to be very good relationships. I would though like us all to finally drop this charade about TOP getting rolled because they backed the cause of morality and got stabbed for it. This really shouldn't become yet another thread about time so I'm going to try to get it back on track by letting everyone in on a secret: Of the alliances on what would be the other side of MK, we match up with MK about as well as any and have more experience with them than most. We're telling you that you're getting excited over nothing. Edited November 4, 2012 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igumen Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1351981314' post='3048178'] Well, all the more reason to correct the matter. Suicide bombers calling themselves martyers are wrong. Better word is kamikaze. [/quote] Oh, yes, I'm all for reclaiming the use of the word "Martyr". "Martyrdom" is used to lend the act more nobility and righteousness. In terms of carrying out aggressive actions which might get your nation on a ZI list, this is not necessarily noble or righteous, as it requires acting in a rogue-ish manner. Brave, perhaps, but not "martyrdom". It cheapens the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Roadie' timestamp='1352048445' post='3048500'] TOP oldest ally is obviously not NPO. TOP did right by themselves when they moved away from NPO, they were never that good of a fit with the rest of tC anyway. The move toward Doomhouse though was more than a move away from NPO, it was in effect (though probably not intentionally) a move away from TOPs oldest treaty partner as evidenced by IRON cancelling on Umbrella about 7 minutes after TOP signed with them. I'm not mad at TOP for finding new friends with former enemies. We've done the same and have found them to be very good relationships. I would though like us all to finally drop this charade about TOP getting rolled because they backed the cause of morality and got stabbed for it. This really shouldn't become yet another thread about time so I'm going to try to get it back on track by letting everyone in on a secret: Of the alliances on what would be the other side of MK, we match up with MK about as well as any and have more experience with them than most. We're telling you that you're getting excited over nothing. [/quote] So IRON cancelling their treaty with a mutual ally is somehow TOP moving away from IRON? Maybe you have it the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1352056178' post='3048545'] So IRON cancelling their treaty with a mutual ally is somehow TOP moving away from IRON? Maybe you have it the other way around. [/quote] Maybe he might be wrong, but I happen to know he is 100% correct. Spin and lie out the side of your neck all you want but I and many many others know the truth. Please continue your hilarious denial and tirade here though as I find it entertaining.....kinda like[ooc ] Romney's etch-a-sketch jokes[\ooc] lulz fo sho! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1352059842' post='3048555'] Maybe he might be wrong, but I happen to know he is 100% correct. Spin and lie out the side of your neck all you want but I and many many others know the truth. Please continue your hilarious denial and tirade here though as I find it entertaining.....kinda like[ooc ] Romney's etch-a-sketch jokes[\ooc] lulz fo sho! [/quote] You're one to talk about spin when it's no secret that said cancellation was in no way political and that IRON signed off on our own treaty with Umbrella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1352060364' post='3048561'] You're one to talk about spin when it's no secret that said cancellation was in no way political and that IRON signed off on our own treaty with Umbrella. [/quote] I'll be honest, I don't know much about the interactions there. I don't doubt that IRON signed off on that treaty, but I guess I question if IRON's opinion really mattered at all in the first place. If IRON said, no, we prefer if you didn't sign that treaty. Would things be different today? Maybe you would have waited a couple weeks before you pressured for approval again, but I doubt they'd be able to prevent the treaty from being signed. They may have just said yes to cut through the b.s.. Edited November 4, 2012 by Enamel32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1352059842' post='3048555'] Maybe he might be wrong, but I happen to know he is 100% correct. Spin and lie out the side of your neck all you want but I and many many others know the truth. Please continue your hilarious denial and tirade here though as I find it entertaining.....kinda like[ooc ] Romney's etch-a-sketch jokes[\ooc] lulz fo sho! [/quote] Just what exactly are you all in here crying about? Are you crying about TOP not being firmly on your side? If that is not your intention then I don't get what you are so mad about. After all we are apparently on the outnumbered side so you can't claim we are abandoning our friends to save our pixels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1352062440' post='3048574'] I'll be honest, I don't know much about the interactions there. I don't doubt that IRON signed off on that treaty, but I guess I question if IRON's opinion really mattered at all in the first place. If IRON said, no, we prefer if you didn't sign that treaty. Would things be different today? Maybe you would have waited a couple weeks before you pressured for approval again, but I doubt they'd be able to prevent the treaty from being signed. They may have just said yes to cut through the b.s.. [/quote] That's right, you don't know about the interactions between TOP and IRON so any guess will be completely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 A better question is why this thread became about TOP in the first place. I thought this was about MK and NPO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1352068830' post='3048649'] That's right, you don't know about the interactions between TOP and IRON so any guess will be completely wrong. [/quote]Heat gets turned up and he takes the easy way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.